The following is one of several reports i've seen on early model Merkavas being knocked out by shoulder fired weapons, i'll post more when I can find them. No doubt the Merkava is a great tank, but I think that it, or any other tank is vulnerable to flank or rear attack by shoulder fired weapons
This is a interesting site by the way, i'll give you the link if you want it.

__________________________________________________ ___________

SOUTH LEBANON 1997

Second-generation, Russian signature-less ATGMs like the 9K111 " Fagot" (code-named "Spigot" AT4 in the west) are being used by Hezbollah to knock out the once invincible Merkava IIB Main Battle Tank (MBT) in mountainous and urbanized Southern Lebanon. The Fagot is very close to the European MILAN ATGM. After Hezbollah guerrillas have been reported as having learned where the weak areas of the Merkava II tank are and to fire two missiles in rapid succession at that spot. 3 Merkava II tanks have been knocked out resulting in 2 dead Soldiers. Without a firing signature, the Fagot (Semi-Automatic Command Line-of-Sight) SACLOS ATGM can be controlled until it hits a specific spot on the tank aimed by the firer who holds the cross-hairs there and is free from the tank's counter fires. The tanker doesn't know he's under attack until the ATGM hits his tank. The IDF is considering pulling the Merkava IIs out of Lebanon and have sent legendary General Tal, creator of the Merkava MBT to solve the problem. Perhaps try out the new Merkava IIIs with modular armor and 120mm main guns?

Armored forces cannot operate in cities without extensive dismounted infantry support. The IDF, because of its traditional bias in favor of armor, often tried to use armor without proper infantry support. It soon discovered, however, that unaccompanied armor strikes were almost always more costly in lives and equipment than operations in which armor was supported by dismounted infantry. Thus, by the siege of Beirut, Israeli tanks almost always entered battle with infantry support to suppress man-portable anti-tank weapons.

1st Tactical Studies Group [U.S AIRBORNE]

__________________________________________________ ___________

Delighted by its success, Hezbollah began bragging publicly about having secured the Merkava blueprint and discovered its “weak spot.” The notion has been curtly dismissed by Israeli military analysts (who nevertheless acknowledge that the Merkava, like all tanks, does have a weak spot between the turret and the body)

__________________________________________________ ___________

Kozzy mozzy wrote
__________________________________________________ ___________
The Leopard 2A6, Challenger 2, and M1A2SEP armor all has pretty much the same level of protection, around 900mm KE and 1500+ HEAT
__________________________________________________ ___________

The Merkava is the most survivable tank in the world for urban warfare. It is not frequently penetrated by RPGs, it took like 5 Saggers to take one out in 72.
__________________________________________________ ___________

I think the IDF got there first Merkavas in 1979?

August 15th, 2004

Kozzy Mozzy

The reason the Merkava Mk 4 is so survivable is because of those incidents with earlier models. They have learned many lessons and fixed all their problems.

Good links Mozzy,but those and like all the others iv'e seen are just estimates, they may be close or they may not.

As for autoloaders, they have a few advantages too. The problem with the poor old T-72's you mention going up like roman candles wasen't the autoloaders, they worked O.K. it was just that Soviet tanks [and tanks like the M-60 and Chieftain] were made obsolete by the British invented Chobram armoured tanks. One hit in the T-72's turret it was easily pierced and up goes the ammo. It was a turkey shoot.

But the Leclerk is an entirely different beast.
It's armour is probably close to other modern western tanks,
Like the Abrams there are blast panels mounted on the roof of the rear turret (three over the autoloader) to allow any ammo explosion to vent up and away from the vehicle and not into the crew compartment should the turret rear be pierced with a round.

On the stats iv'e read,the French autoloader fires at around 6 rounds/30 seconds, about the same as a good loader and thats when the loaders fresh.
As he keeps lugging those shells [about 40 pds I think] in his cramped position under fire in a fast moving tank [it can be risky too] over rough ground, he gets slower untill the autoloader will be probably be putting more steel on steel.

And not having a manual loader means the turret can be more compact, if you compare the turret of the M-1 and Leopard 2 to the Leclerk.

If there's a mechanical breakdown, the Leclerk can load manually in an emergancy.
I haven't heard of the Leclerk having many problems with the autoloader, perhaps youv'e heard of some?

The American/German MTB-70 was to have an autoloader.

Some years back the U.S. army in a proposed upgrade of the M-1 was going to put on a new turret, much more compact with an autoloader, the French put their autoloader into competition with 3 American designs.

I wouldn't mind a small wager that the next generation of tanks will be smaller and lighter with an autoloader.
Or electromagnetic guns, liquid
propellant guns, or electrothermal-chemical guns should be available further down the track.
But who knows, I could be on the wrong track.

--

August 17th, 2004

Mark Conley

no your track is good...look beyond that...

pretty soon..there wont be a need for a tank on the battlefield. just as soon as directed energy weapons (exotic laser, high frequency radio-frequency energy, or even i think an x-ray laser) make their foray into the battlefield the tank will become a liability instead of an asset.

oh, i supposed they could come up with something that deflects directed energy..ceramics..brillant coatings..absorbtive or abalative pre-coatings that take the brunt of the heat..who knows. it wont be the protective factor that does the tank in..it will simply be the cost versus the practical military return of having a tank on a battlefield.

better get your shots in while you can tankers..just as we air force buzzards will get ours in before we are replaced with space based platforms...

August 17th, 2004

Guy100

I think that the T-90S is the best MBT in the world, because it has all that a tank needs to have: firepower, mobility, protection.

Firepower:
1) 125mm smooth bore gun: This gun is capble of firing guided missiles to a range of 5000 m against ground or low fling air targets. The missile can penetrate 700mm of armour behind ERA. The gun also has new shells that can penetrate much more armour than that of the T-72. that means the T-90S can defeat the abrams with no problem. The gun also has atomatic loading (which the abrams doesen't have).
2) 7.62mm PKT MG: powerfull MG with great rate of fire.
3) 12.7mm coxial MG: this MG is radio controlled by the comander from in side the tank.

Mobility:
1) 1000 hp diesel engine: the T-90S used to have the old 840 hp diesel engine, but now the have all been upgraded the the 1000 hp diesel engine, which gives the T-90S a top speed of more than 70 km/h.

Protection:
1) Armour: The T-90S's frontal armour together with Kontakt-5 ERA (built in ERA which is standard with all T-90S tanks) is equal to 1350mm of armour (like the M1A2 Abrams). The armour can withstand direct hits from the newest shells used by the abrams.
2) Shtora-1: provides protection from all semi atomatic lazer and wire guided missiles (like Maverik, Hellfire, TOW, HOT, Javalin and more).
3) Arena: the arena system is optional and can be fitted on all modern Russian armour including BMP's (IFVs). The arena also provides protection from almost all the anti tank missiles (Abrams doesen't have systems like arena or shtora-1, and belive me he could use them, I know a site that shows blow up abrams tanks in iraq, that where destroid by an RPG-7!).

Cost: T-90S costs 2-3 million US (that's how much other Russian and NATO tanks cost). compare to the abrmas that costs more than 5 million US.

If you want to see the T-90S in action than visit this site and press on the top blue bar where "video" is written (the first 3 clips are about the T-90S the others are about other Russian weapons). The first clip shows the T-90S preforming cool manuvers and showing of its mobility like jumping and turning in one place. The second one shows the T-90S firing at all types of targets while on the move and the clip also shows how the comander controls the coxial MG from inside the tank and how he fires it. The third clip shows how the shtora-1 protects the T-90S when a missile is fired at him (all are really cool clips):http://www.roe.ru/offices.htm

If you want to know more about the T-90S and other modern Russian MBT, then visit this site (the site also provides information about the russian atomatic loading system and about the Shtora-1, Arena, Drozd, Drozd 2 and Kontakt-5 ERA protection systems. There are also 3 short clips showing how the arena system protects the tank):http://armor.kiev.ua/fofanov/Tanks/

Enjoy!

August 17th, 2004

Kozzy Mozzy

Not really

Firepower
1. M289A3 sabot does 960mm at 2km, the T-90M's frontal turret is 800mm vs KE. Even the M289A2 could do it at 750mm. Basically, the Abrams can take the turret off a T-90 at 2km for sure.
2. The T-90's guided missile, the AT-11 can get cannot get a turret front kill on an Abrams, on the glacis yes. It's range advantage is null, normal battle ranges are under 3km, where the Abrams can easily get the T-90
3. The x50 FLIR channel on the SEP is the best in the world. The T-90's fire control and optics are lacking. The Abrams has a 90% hit chance while on the move, the T-90 has 70%
4. The M1 has 2 M240 MGs and a .50 cal, with more ammo then a T-90
5. Human loaders are superior to auto-loaders, go back through this thread and see why.

Mobility
1. The mobility of the two or more or less equal, the T-90 is lighter and more reliable. The M1 has better acceleration and top speed.

Protection
1. The M1A2SEP has 900mm vs KE and 1500+ vs CE. The T-90M has 800mm vs. KE and 1200mm vs CE. I believe the KE value would go down more against a M289A3, which is designed against K-5.
2. THe T-90's ammo is stored around the turret ring, if the ammo blows, the turret flies into the air. When the ammo explodes on the M1, the explosion is vented through blowout panels, the crew survives and maybe even able to fight after this
3. I like the Anti-missile systems on the T-90. But they aren't going to do much against an M1 or a Hellfire or a LOSAT.

Did I miss anything?

August 19th, 2004

Ashes

Great links Guy100, especially the clips, first time i've seen film of the Shtora-1 or Arena.
I suppose it makes sense to have an active defensive system like that instead of just adding heavier armour all the time.
What's the latest on Russian tank design, any chance of something like the T-95 going into service in the future?

August 19th, 2004

Guy100

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ashes

Great links Guy100, especially the clips, first time i've seen film of the Shtora-1 or Arena.
I suppose it makes sense to have an active defensive system like that instead of just adding heavier armour all the time.
What's the latest on Russian tank design, any chance of something like the T-95 going into service in the future?

I don't know much about the T-95, all I know is that: it's going to be stealth, very very low, it's going to have arena or shtora-1 or both and it's probably going to have a 152mm or a 155mm gun.
I also know that it will have very good crew protection, a new atomatic loading system and that the turret is anmanned, its controlled by the comander and gunner from inside the tank's hull. it is going to have the most powerfull armour and the most powerful shells, which could penetrate the abrams front hull from great ranges. It will probably have a crew of three like all modern Russian tanks (commander, gunner, driver).
I don't know when or if it will go into service any time soon, but probably the T-80UM2 "black eagle" will go into service first, and then the T-95.
The T-80UM2 "black eagle" is also a great tank and is much better then the abrams.
it's unknown what main gun will the T-80UM2 have (125mm or 130mm or 135mm or 145mm or 152mm or 155mm).
The T-80UM2 has the best armour of any MBT today. It will also have the arena or shtora-1 or drozd 2 systems, new atomatic loading system, and a crew of three. the T-80UM2 is 400mm lower than the standard T-80U

The T-95 and the T-80UM2 will have all the latests systems.
the T-80UM2 will probably be avalible to other countries as well, i don't know if the T-95 will be on sale.

Did you watch some other Russian military equipment in action on the site?

August 19th, 2004

Guy100

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kozzy Mozzy

Not really

Firepower
1. M289A3 sabot does 960mm at 2km, the T-90M's frontal turret is 800mm vs KE. Even the M289A2 could do it at 750mm. Basically, the Abrams can take the turret off a T-90 at 2km for sure.
2. The T-90's guided missile, the AT-11 can get cannot get a turret front kill on an Abrams, on the glacis yes. It's range advantage is null, normal battle ranges are under 3km, where the Abrams can easily get the T-90
3. The x50 FLIR channel on the SEP is the best in the world. The T-90's fire control and optics are lacking. The Abrams has a 90% hit chance while on the move, the T-90 has 70%
4. The M1 has 2 M240 MGs and a .50 cal, with more ammo then a T-90
5. Human loaders are superior to auto-loaders, go back through this thread and see why.

Mobility
1. The mobility of the two or more or less equal, the T-90 is lighter and more reliable. The M1 has better acceleration and top speed.

Protection
1. The M1A2SEP has 900mm vs KE and 1500+ vs CE. The T-90M has 800mm vs. KE and 1200mm vs CE. I believe the KE value would go down more against a M289A3, which is designed against K-5.
2. THe T-90's ammo is stored around the turret ring, if the ammo blows, the turret flies into the air. When the ammo explodes on the M1, the explosion is vented through blowout panels, the crew survives and maybe even able to fight after this
3. I like the Anti-missile systems on the T-90. But they aren't going to do much against an M1 or a Hellfire or a LOSAT.

Did I miss anything?

Not really.

first of all the Shtora-1 protects the tank from all semi atomatic lazer guided missiles including the hellfire missile!

second of all, my sorces show (I have got alot of sorces and don't tell me that my sorces are wrong because they are from published books or from official military sites) that T-90's frontal armour can not be penetrated by the M289A2 shell from a range of 2km and that the M289A3 shell can penetrate the T-90 from a range of just a little more than 2km while the T-90 can destroy the abrams from a range of 4-5 km by using it's guided missile to penetrate through the abrams's turret roof.

August 19th, 2004

Kozzy Mozzy

Shtora does protect against laser guided missiles. It doesn't offer 100% protection though, most advanced laser systems can get through smoke and aerosol. Apache and Kiowa crews are taught a tactic where they lase the area next to a target and fire the missile, they wait till the missile is close then move the laser onto the tank.

At 2km, the A2 would have some trouble with the T-90M. It's would get through on the upper and side turret front though. T-90M=800mm, A2= 750mm

The A3 would have no trouble on the T-90M at 2km. I'd give the Abrams' effective kill range on the T-90 using the A3 out to 2.5km. A3=960mm

But any penetration on the T-90 results in a catastrophic explosion, blowing the turret off and killing the crew.

The AT-11 isn't top attack, it is a direct fire missile and would not penetrate the Abrams front. Not to mention the 4-5km range advantage is null, with main battle ranges being 3km or less. Plus the T-90's optics and fire control are inferior, reducing the range the T-90 can see the Abrams. The AT-11 missile is also rare, a loudout of 6 are given to only the elite units.